Re: [Fecframe] I-D Action: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-04.txt

Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr> Wed, 17 October 2012 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8F521F84D9 for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J-NMdW-7n+vg for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 07:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD58821F84B8 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 07:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,600,1344204000"; d="scan'208";a="159365003"
Received: from geve.inrialpes.fr ([194.199.24.116]) by mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 17 Oct 2012 16:13:37 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <BAE0CC0CAB9C9C4AAE57C71E55C451D820BD2069@NASANEXD02C.na.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:13:37 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <6B7DE333-64BD-445F-ADC7-38226E270142@inria.fr>
References: <BAE0CC0CAB9C9C4AAE57C71E55C451D820BD2069@NASANEXD02C.na.qualcomm.com>
To: "Luby, Michael" <luby@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: Mathieu Cunche <mathieu.cunche@inria.fr>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Lacan?= <jerome.lacan@isae.fr>, "fecframe@ietf.org" <fecframe@ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [Fecframe] I-D Action: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-04.txt
X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework <fecframe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe>
List-Post: <mailto:fecframe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:13:41 -0000

Mike,

>> More importantly. Since:
>> 
>> 1- you noticed we impose restrictions on the way LDPC-Staircase codes are
>> being used in section 4.1;
>> 
>> 2- you certainly remember the discussion we had in 2009 concerning 10 out
>> of the 13 patents mentioned in the RFC5170 IPR disclosure, whose
>> conclusion
>> is here:
>> 	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg01384.html
>> 
>> 3- the present I-D only considers LDPC-Staircase codes whereas RFC5170
>>  defines two FEC schemes;
>> 
>> you will probably conclude like us that QC's IPR disclosure for RFC5170
>> does
>> not necessarily apply to this I-D. Hence our question: does QC intend to
>> do
>> a new IPR disclosure? When?
> 
> *** This specification inherits technology from RFC 5170, and we have made
> IPR declarations with regards to RFC 5170.  As far as I know, we do not
> plan to make any further IPR declarations on this specification.

IPR disclosure transitivity is only possible if the conditions of use are
exactly the same as that of the initial document. This is not the case
since we restrict to cases where G==1 and only focus on LDPC-
Staircase codes, and you recognized it.

Additionally  you acknowledged in Oct. 2009 that using G>1 was the
only reason that motivated 10 patents of this IPR disclosure. See:
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg01358.html

So we have good reasons to believe that an IPR disclosure specific to
this I-D could differ from that of RFC5170.

Do you agree or not? I'd like to understand your point.


Cheers,

    Vincent